|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Jan 19, 2006 19:52:50 GMT -5
Is cloning currently legal in the United States? There is no specific federal law that outlaws reproductive cloning in the United States, so it is not technically illegal. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have made the highly questionable claim that reproductive cloning falls under their “Food and Drug” jurisdiction and anyone wishing to perform reproductive cloning must apply to them for a license. The FDA clearly has no intention of granting any of these licenses, so, assuming their flimsy jurisdiction claim holds up in court (a *big* assumption), it is not possible to legally perform reproductive cloning in the United States. I hope this answers your question. Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netQuestions can be posted here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post
|
|
|
Post by jess on Jan 31, 2006 19:48:04 GMT -5
oh, wow, i have never been here before, but i have questions, i am 12 and i am in 7th grade, we are doing something in social studies (model congress) and so i need to debate on the "genetic cloning" topic
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Feb 1, 2006 19:34:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tc on Feb 3, 2006 10:55:15 GMT -5
I need assistance: tannercrosby@yahoo.com
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Feb 3, 2006 15:06:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Geoffrey on Feb 15, 2006 23:51:02 GMT -5
if an animal or person dies then it was meant to be.Let them go.if God wanted us cloned he would of given us the knowledge to do so from the start of life. Andrew Did God tell us how to make penicillin? Or how to perform a bypass surgery? Or how to care for premature infants? If not, do you condone these acts of medical intervention? If yes, why? God did not give us the knowledge of how to do that. A lot is left for humans to learn for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by enish a student on Feb 26, 2006 8:36:16 GMT -5
what are the disadvantages of a cloning?
|
|
|
Post by philosopher on Mar 3, 2006 22:41:31 GMT -5
How often do you log on to reply to new messages and delete the spam?
Could we use cow or pig or some other animal's eggs to clone humans? Obviously the mitochondrial DNA would be different, but for the purposes of theraputic cloning would that matter?
What about in reproductive human cloning? Would it be considered fully human if it was cloned using a non-human egg?
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Mar 4, 2006 21:37:15 GMT -5
what are the disadvantages of a cloning? Hi Enish, the main potential disadvantage of cloning is that it is has not yet been proven to be safe. It seems reasonable to suggest that it would be prudent to perform reproductive cloning first in the non-human primate in order to observe the feasibility, efficacy and safety of this reproductive technology before applying it to treat human infertility. For more information I suggest you read the "Commentary on human cloning": www.reproductivecloning.net/cloning.pdfI hope this answers your question. Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netQuestions can be posted here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Mar 4, 2006 21:55:17 GMT -5
How often do you log on to reply to new messages and delete the spam? Could we use cow or pig or some other animal's eggs to clone humans? Obviously the mitochondrial DNA would be different, but for the purposes of theraputic cloning would that matter? What about in reproductive human cloning? Would it be considered fully human if it was cloned using a non-human egg? Hi Philosopher, welcome back. How often do I log on to reply to new messages and delete the spam? Not often enough, but my time is unfortunately limited at the moment. The spam is the main problem. Automated spam “bots” post new spam messages on a regular basis. If you would be willing to delete spam every once in a while when you log on to the cloning message board I would be very grateful. Let me know if you are interested and I will upgrade your account to a Moderator. Now, regarding your question. Could we use cow or pig or some other animal's eggs to clone humans? Dr. Dominko claimed to be able to produce human-cow hybrid embryos by injecting human donor nuclei into enucleated cow eggs (Dominko et al 1999). However, none of these embryos turned out to be developmentally viable. In fact, there are rumors in scientific circles that it may not even be possible to produce cloned blastocysts cross-species. Dr. West from ACT has claimed that no lab has ever been able to repeat Dr. Dominko’s 1999 work and there's only two other reports of blastocysts successful produced cross-species, one is a highly questionable human to rabbit NT Chinese report by Dr. Shen (or Chen, I forget the spelling) and the the other is from the now disgraced and fraudulent Dr. Hwang. So, cross-species cloning may not even be possible. Same species cloning is hard enough. I hope this answers your question. Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netQuestions can be posted here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post
|
|
|
Post by lddh on Mar 17, 2006 12:44:37 GMT -5
I believe that human clonig should never be allowed
|
|
|
Post by Amy on Mar 20, 2006 19:35:08 GMT -5
Hi,
I recently wrote a critique on the essay 'Against a prohibition on cloning', by Alonzo Fyfe, for college. I followed the link, labelled 'One of the best essays on the ethics of human cloning.' i'm sorry, but have any of you read this article?!
Putting aside the fact that i disagree with his theories on many levels, i don't see how they can mean anything to anyone. There is nothing to back up his arguments, which may or may not be valid (who knows), no quotes that he hasn't made up himself, no statistics and no research into cloning - which shows little knowledge of the subject.
If he does have any of these things (i'm not suggesting that there is nothing to back these arguments up) i'd be interested to know why he didn't add this to his essay, and give his words some credibility.
Towards the end it turns into an all out rant, about how 'people' (we never find out who these people are) are calling him selfish and trying to punish him by stopping him having children. I have no children, but cannot imagine the agony of being told i couldn't have any, he and his wife have my every sympathy for that. But his argument comes across very bitter and defensive, because there is some sort of government vendetta against him personally, to stop him having his own children.
He never actually looks at the other point of view, logically, coming up with silly comparisons, such as comparing cloning to pork! (you'll have to read it to get that) And talking about a cloned army of Hitlers. (Do people actually believe that?) It ends up being totally irrelevant, cloning is cloning, therefore we shouldn't treat it like pork.
It sounds petty and immature, very much adopting a 'yeah well, they're no better than us' attitude, completely changing the direction of the argument, so that it doesn't so much negate his point, just makes it sound ridiculous. (All humans are guinea pigs, moreso than any clone would be - apparently, not sure what that's based on)
Not helping himself by repeating several of the same points over and over, finding different ways to say the same thing does not lend itself to the argument.
There are no ethics in this essay, it is one mans paranoia about how people might think he is selfish or that his child will have no soul. If people actually said this, tell us! Instead of refering to them as 'others' 'some people' or 'arguers'. It sounds amateurish, and takes away from any of the good points he actually manages to make.
I don't think it is selfish to want your own child, far from it. But when making this point he comes across as aggressive, and with nothing to back it up it is all meaningless.
Just wanted to point out that of all the articles i have read on this subject, this is certainly not 'one of the best.'
|
|
Link to cloning article
Guest
|
Post by Link to cloning article on Mar 20, 2006 22:33:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Mar 21, 2006 0:44:53 GMT -5
I recently wrote a critique on the essay 'Against a prohibition on cloning', by Alonzo Fyfe, for college. I followed the link, labelled 'One of the best essays on the ethics of human cloning.' i'm sorry, but have any of you read this article?! Hi Amy, personally I find Alonzo Fyfe’s article to be a well written and well thought out piece. Whether it is “one of the best” cloning articles is clearly subjective, but I will try to address the criticisms you have raised. Putting aside the fact that i disagree with his theories on many levels, i don't see how they can mean anything to anyone. There is nothing to back up his arguments, which may or may not be valid (who knows), no quotes that he hasn't made up himself, no statistics and no research into cloning - which shows little knowledge of the subject. I would suggest that most of his arguments are relatively self-evident and do not require statistics and it seems unfair to claim he has little knowledge of cloning after comprehensively addressing nine common objections to cloning. I would like to know on which levels do you disagree with his theories? Would you be so kind as to post your critique on this message board? Towards the end it turns into an all out rant, about how 'people' (we never find out who these people are) are calling him selfish and trying to punish him by stopping him having children. I have no children, but cannot imagine the agony of being told i couldn't have any, he and his wife have my every sympathy for that. But his argument comes across very bitter and defensive, because there is some sort of government vendetta against him personally, to stop him having his own children. Technically the USA government is out to stop Alonzo, his wife and other infertile people like them from having biologically related children. Mr. Fyfe and his wife can’t conceive naturally or though IVF, so the only method they could conceive a genetically related child is though reproductive cloning and the US administration has repeatedly called for reproductive cloning to be made illegal. It does not surprise me that Mr. Fyfe is “bitter and defensive”. He never actually looks at the other point of view, logically, coming up with silly comparisons, such as comparing cloning to pork! (you'll have to read it to get that) And talking about a cloned army of Hitlers. (Do people actually believe that?) It ends up being totally irrelevant, cloning is cloning, therefore we shouldn't treat it like pork. Mr. Fyfe’s comment on pork was to point out religious prohibitions against cloning: “First, to those who claim that their god does not want Theresia coming into this world, I say that this is between you and your god. We are not a part of your religion. You may preach, implore, and attempt to convert us, but you have no right to use the law to drag Lesley in front of your priests so that they may refuse her permission to have her own child. Your religion may prohibit the eating of pork, but you may not prohibit grocery stores from selling it. Your religion may prohibit the use of contraceptives, but the Supreme Court ruled (Griswold v. Connecticut) that you may not prohibit the sale of birth control to those not of that religion. And your religion may prohibit the use of medical technology for anything other than broken bones, but does not grant you the right to close down all hospitals. Cloning is just another medical technology. Your religion may deny you permission to make use of it, but not to sacrifice somebody else's potential child on the alter of your God and prohibit others the use of that technology.” (Fyfe, Against a prohibition on cloning') In regards to you other comment, yes, we receive repeated posts and emails based around the fear that armies of “Hitlers” (or similar monsters) will be cloned. It sounds petty and immature, very much adopting a 'yeah well, they're no better than us' attitude, completely changing the direction of the argument, so that it doesn't so much negate his point, just makes it sound ridiculous. (All humans are guinea pigs, moreso than any clone would be - apparently, not sure what that's based on). Not helping himself by repeating several of the same points over and over, finding different ways to say the same thing does not lend itself to the argument. May I enquire as to which specific points are repeated? There are no ethics in this essay, it is one mans paranoia about how people might think he is selfish or that his child will have no soul. If people actually said this, tell us! Instead of refering to them as 'others' 'some people' or 'arguers'. It sounds amateurish, and takes away from any of the good points he actually manages to make. Again, all of the objections that Mr. Fyfe addresses are actual objections raised by contributors by post and email. None are straw men. I don't think it is selfish to want your own child, far from it. But when making this point he comes across as aggressive, and with nothing to back it up it is all meaningless. I would suggest that it is both an aggressive and defensive article (I don’t think that is an oxymoron?). However, I believe he repeatedly backs his claims with metaphors and detailed explanations. Mr Fyfe’s aritlce can be found here: www.reproductivecloning.net/Articles/fyfe.htmRegards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netQuestions can be posted here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post
|
|
|
Post by Amy on Mar 21, 2006 10:28:51 GMT -5
Hi again, To begin with i should tell you that my critique isn't actually finished yet, my deadline is tomorrow, but i'll try and post it as soon as i can. I don't claim it is any good though, as i've never actually done one before. Also i don't know if this quoting thing will work because i've never done that before either, so fingers crossed. I would suggest that most of his arguments are relatively self-evident and do not require statistics and it seems unfair to claim he has little knowledge of cloning after comprehensively addressing nine common objections to cloning. I would like to know on which levels do you disagree with his theories? Whether his arguments are self evident or not i think is irrelevant, what's the point of writing it at all if it is already 'self evident'? He has nothing to back his points up, it seems to lack credibility without some demonstration of knowledge on the subject. It seems to me that he must have some knowledge of cloning if he and his wife have considered it, so why would he not include this? Otherwise it sounds like a rant, going on and on, with no real substance. As far as my views are concerned, i'm against cloning from a religious point of view, i do believe it is 'playing God' - cliched as that sounds. But i would never tell a child they have no soul, or call them an abomination or anything like that, they would still be a person, they aren't responsible for how they came to be. Technically the USA government is out to stop Alonzo, his wife and other infertile people like them from having biologically related children. Mr. Fyfe and his wife can’t conceive naturally or though IVF, so the only method they could conceive a genetically related child is though reproductive cloning and the US administration has repeatedly called for reproductive cloning to be made illegal. It does not surprise me that Mr. Fyfe is “bitter and defensive”. Technically yes, there are some barriers to stop Alonzo having children, and i can honestly see how this would be very personal to him - i would take it personally. But he speaks like the authorities are trying to punish him by stopping him having a child. I think the issues surrounding cloning are still very much up in the air, so to speak, the question is whether it is safe, or more commonly, if it is morally right. It is not a question of just doing it anyway to avoid people feeling that they are being victimised. Mr. Fyfe’s comment on pork was to point out religious prohibitions against cloning. I understand his way of thinking behind this comment, my point was that throughout the article Alonzo continually uses ridiculous comparisons to make his argument. Many times i found myself asking 'what does this have to do with cloning?' And if everybody 'selflessly' chose to adopt instead of having children naturally, there would be something of a shortage of children, i feel. May I enquire as to which specific points are repeated? Well, for example the first three sections ends with the same point, how the government should not be allowed to prevent so-called 'imperfect' children to be born and how they shouldn't dictate who can have children. He seems to ignore the fact that sometimes nature dictates who can and can't have children, it's not always the government. It appeared to me that the first sections were all making the same point in different ways. Again, all of the objections that Mr. Fyfe addresses are actual objections raised by contributors by post and email. None are straw men. That is precisely my point. I am aware that 'people' feel this way about cloning, but the argument holds no weight if all the quotes appear to be from one persons opinions of what other people might think. If there is a reference to a person actually saying this, it makes the argument far less onesided and i would be more inclined to emphathise with him. I would suggest that it is both an aggressive and defensive article (I don’t think that is an oxymoron?). However, I believe he repeatedly backs his claims with metaphors and detailed explanations. 'Detailed explanations' that are all from his own ideas, 'metaphors' that distract from any good points he might make, not actually supporting cloning, just turning the story round so that it becomes completely irrelevant. There is no discussion, it is completely one sided. I realise he is going to be bias, he is for cloning, therefore he is going to have an angle on it. But he doesn't even try to look logically at the other side of the argument. He backs his own ideas with his own opinions, making it pointless writing the piece to being with. Wow, that was a long post.
|
|